Talk:USS Chekov
For this ship is the information on it (name, class, registry number) taken from the model as shown on screen, or some reference work? If the model, is there a screen cap of it somewhere? Thanks! Aholland 19:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :Photographs of the filming model are part of Michael Okuda's portfolio, and can be viewed as http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org .. the photos cannot be reproduced here or on other websites. There is also an interview with Mr. Okuda which confirms this data. -- Captain M.K.B. 19:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks, Captain! Hmmm. I don't think it works. What we have is a permitted resource (a model seen on screen) that is directly contradicted by dialogue on screen. Pursuant to the canon policy, a Restricted Validity Resource cannot be used as the basis for an article if it is directly contradicted by a valid resource (in this case, on-screen dialogue referencing the same ship by a different name). The script doesn't even support the name; it actually had the ship's name as the "Chekhov", which is the proper spelling of Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, the Russian writer, but NOT Pavel Chekov, the Russian navigator. And if you look at the model anyway, it appears to me (after much eyestrain) that there are 7 letters for the name of the one with the registry 57302. ::So it seems that the script originally called for a ship called the "Chekhov", that a model for such a ship was built and filmed, that the name was not visible on-screen, and that sometime between that point and the time the episode was finished the decision was made that the ship called "Chekhov" would be renamed the "Tolstoy" in dialogue. Therefore, for Memory Alpha resource purposes neither the "Chekhov" nor the "Chekov" can be used for the creation of an article. They can be background for the Tolstoy, though. ::If anyone has some other resource for the Chekov or the Chekhov, though, please post it here. Aholland 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :But here on Memory Alpha we use many pieces of information that were applied to hardly-seen starship models and other artwork, not directly visible onscreen, but are available for review through the photographic records of the studio and art department. I have reviewed pictures of the Chekov filming model and found that it is indeed labeled "Chekov" (not "Chekhov"), and it has been found to be visible on he Enterprise viewscreen in "Best of Both Worlds" (even though the name isn't).. the script called for a ship called Chekhov, but the script was contradicted by being edited out of the episode, but the model and its registry were filmed as such. So the script reference is immaterial, as the creators didnt want "Chekhov" in the episode (they renamed the dialogue "Tolstoy"), but the model reference stands, as a model indeed labeled "Chekov" was included. :The producers didn't remove Chekhov because they didn't think a ship could be named that (although there was no ship Chekhov), i don't believe this illustrates their intent that there "would be/never was" a ship Chekov -- this is dragging out too many assumptions. Just because they thought that mentioning a ship at a certain moment would disrupt the drama of the scene, doesn't mean they thought it an impossibility or unlikelihood the ship was named. :Do you have a statement from Michael Piller stating his intentions? If not, I'd say you have no argument... :I'm not sure that a consensus would agree with your opinion that it "doesn't work", but thanks for sharing that. Perhaps we need to alter the canon policy again so it is clearer about how this information is valid. -- Captain M.K.B. 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I personally believe that a ship where there is no clear image of the ship from the episode, where there is no clear image of a name on the model, where a script has a different name for the ship, and where dialogue was expressly changed to reference the ship - whatever name was on the model - by another name should only be background information (on Tolstoy?) rather than an article of its own. I'll check my Encyclopedia and Tech Manual at home (since if it is in there that counts as a permitted resource for this type of thing and I'll quietly shut up after citing it), but if I can't find anything I'll probably just nominate it for deletion as a primary article and we can let other people weigh in. Aholland 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :::So far, hasn't "off-screen" information only be used to support on-screen information? Isn't that what the whole section of the new canon policy is about? Wasn't information not from the episodes considered completely "invalid" according to the old canon policy? If there's exactly nothing on-screen that even hints at a ship that might have been called "Chek(h)ov", and that's what I'm getting from the discussion above, why are we even having this discussion? -- Cid Highwind 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :Isn't that why i dislike most of the new canon policy and feel it should be changed? :The info on the Chekov is available in behind the scenes resources, as well as the encyclopedia -- i feel that any time a modelmaker working for the show labeled a ship, and there is no good reason to disinclude the info, the info should be used. Count this as my vote that such language should be part of the policy. Maybe we are rushing things with policies, since i feel my point of view isn't included.... -- Captain M.K.B. 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :::I have no idea what exactly you might or might not like about the new policy, but I'm sure we will discuss that in great detail on the policy talk page. ;) However, I'm equally sure that I''' don't like including information that doesn't have the tiniest connection to at least some on-screen data. I think that reasoning would lead us straightly into including the whole TNG:TM - after all, it was created by people "working for the show" and there's "no good reason to disinclude the info"? :::The problem with "rushing things with policies" is, that this article would have even less of a place here according to the old one - but that's another point that should probably be discussed elsewhere. -- Cid Highwind 22:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :In the late '90s and early 2000s, this site's own founders participated in information gathering, Michael Okuda was interviewed to obtain behind-the-scenes photos and information about how the ships were labeled, and where they appeared in this episode. This information has not been secret, it was relayed in several of his reference works and those of others, and he gave talks on the subject at numerous conventions. I've provided a link to a site where this model is photographed, and caps are available of where it appears onscreen. I'm not sure why there's still a question. :I certainly think there could be improvements to this article -- for example, the Springfield class designation is not from canon -- it wasn't mentioned except in the later Encyclopedia. But the research is here to prove this ship itself was used onscreen -- what i don't like about the canon policy is that it is too long to read, i'm not even sure which part of it is being quoted here, but it seems designed to disinclude all data except that which is available from cursory examination of TV episodes, which conflicts with the fact the MA has thousands of articles based on behind-the-scenes info which fit fine into the Star Trek universe -- and has been included as valid because (like TAS), despite not being immediately visible as part of episodic Trek lore, was designed and referred to later by numerous artists who have done hard work contributing to the creation of new episodes. -- Captain M.K.B. 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :::Well... '''Was the model visible in one of the battle scenes in the episode somewhere? As I said above, the impression I get from this whole discussion is that it wasn't - if this impression is wrong, please tell me, as that would probably shorten the whole thing considerably. -- Cid Highwind 22:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC) ::::Okay... wow, um... I'm not sure exactly how much I can add to the discussion, or if I'll even help matters, but this is how I feel: the model for the USS Chekov was seen in the episode, although the name and registry was not... am I right? If so, then the fact that the name wasn't seen doesn't matter... the mode was seen; that model was called USS Chekov. Therefore, the USS Chekov is valid. The dialogue in the episode may have changed to reference a different ship, but that doesn't change the fact that there was a USS Chekov seen in the battlefield. Had there been a different camera angle of the ship, guess what – we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, yeah, that's my view on things. (By the way, the model doesn't conflict with the dialogue, nor did it mean that the Chekov was changed to Tolstoy – they just referenced a different ship in dialogue. Hence, there is no conflict with our canon policy.) --From Andoria with Love 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :Here are Bernd Scneider's illustrations: (Captain M.K.B.) REMOVED - COPYRIGHT VIOLATION :::::Well, here are some more screencaps that might be of help. And here are the direct links to the articles at www.ex-astris-scientia.org Wolf 359 - Overview Wolf 359 - Interview with Michael Okuda Springfield Class Reconstruction --Jörg 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC) ::I removed the copyrighted image as it was expressly forbidden to be reproduced. Aholland 23:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) :::Actually, most "fair use" licenses on wikipedia recognize that low res and obscured versions of copyrighted or non-circulable pictures can be used for review purposes, but I hope you at least looked at it this time. A lot of people who worked with Bernd on that project have verified the data in question, and i've discussed it with all involved numerous times to make sure that there were a large number of people in agreement about what the registry said, where the ship was placed in the episode, so on and so forth. -- Captain M.K.B. 00:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :I deal with copyright law. An argument can be made about fair use, but the fact that this is a commercial site (note the google ads) cuts against it when the entirety of a copyrighted work is copied (albeit masked) and it is clearly noted as licensed for an individual website only. Regardless, the site asked that it not be copied, and I suggest we honor that request. :I had earlier examined the image as presented at ex-astris scientia (a wonderful site). I see the conclusions reached, and the methodologies used. In the writeup itself the author notes discrepancies in what was seen on screen and the models that someone identified as having been used, but concludes such things as "it is still a mystery why the bottom pod seemingly doesn't exist in the top view of the ship". In the end, it becomes a matter of faith and supposition rather than fact, as the matching of the smudge to a 3D rendered ship is interesting, but hardly conclusive. :But the thing that I cannot get over is the total lack of a name. The script discarded "Chekhov", and no photo of the model used shows a name with any legibility. :I am not, as is suggested above, dismissing this out of hand. I am merely trying to get my initial question answered: Where is there anything from a permitted resource that contains the name "Chekov", where is the registry associated with it found, and where is the ship class name found? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it isn't found anywhere except as an accepted fiction. Please prove me wrong, and I promise to shut up about it! One clear photo of a ship with a name that matches what is shown on screen and I can get over Tolstoy very easily. Thanks. Aholland 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::I'm saying that the photo is or should be a permitted resource -- and I'm sorry I don't understand the new version of the canon policy that might say different. It was taken behind the scenes, at Paramount Pictures, by Michael Okuda or a member of his staff. The status quo here, and possibly older revisions of the canon policy, all maintain this kind of thing as allowable. ::I'm also saying that I have seen a higher resolution version of that photo, and that it does indeed say C-H-E-K-O-V on the hull -- and the website the photo is on backs me up on this. If you are saying you can't read it fine, but I'm not sure if you are accusing me of a falsehood -- something that really makes me think you aren't discussing this with me in good faith. I'm not a liar. -- Captain M.K.B. 01:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :::I did not and am not calling you a liar. I am merely saying that I cannot read a name in that photo, and do not subscribe to the forensic photo analysis (noted as flawed in the article itself) that attempts to place the model in that episode. We cannot, as I discussed on the long note you left on my Talk page, simply go by what people say is true. We have to have independent verification or this site will degenerate into a "trust me" mode. That would permit me, for instance, to say I visited the Trek sets in 1991 and saw a model of the USS Bozo, NX-49876, which was stated to me by Okuda to be a Clown Class and was filmed in BOBW. That smudge in the lower right. See? We cannot operate that way and hope to have any claim to legitimacy. It has to be capable of being seen or heard by readers independent of this site to count as a resource - valid or otherwise. Aholland 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not saying we should accept the data based on the convention slideshow -- so I don't really care for your bozo reference. ::I still maintain forensic photo analysis isn't necessary -- the photo on Bernd's site is of a ship with six letters in its name, not 7 -- clearly visible to me. I know Bernd still has an account here, but 'independant of this site (i.e. before MA existed) he had verified it with his published interview that the six-letter variant of the spelling was on the hull (not through photo analysis as you suggest). Whether you are accepting his information as an independant party (as webmaster of EAS) or as an admin at MA (which he is), his site exists as a publication of that kind of data. An addition to the page of a link to his site, the resource (The official interviews and official photo that his site can publish and we cannot) will be visible to readers, meaning we have succeeded in satisfying that requirement. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::::I, respectfully, disagree. I have nothing but respect for Bernd, but it took him an entire page to reach a conclusion that is conjectural at best - and it looks to me like photo analysis. I still cannot read the name; I still don't fully buy off on the conclusion. I've put the article up for deletion and we'll see what the powers that be say about keeping it around with the paucity of information regarding it. ::I'm not sure, maybe its your eyesight at fault and not EAS or the USS Chekov page. I can read it pretty well, but I am an artist who spends a lot of time setting type. ::The next step would be to in some way send a question to Mr. Okuda asking if he had indeed been interviewed and that the picture and information on Bernd's site was turthful. Seems like a lot of trouble when so many archivists here realize we have the evidence in front of us in that picture, on that site, in other interviews or the same published other places (Star Trek staffer interviews on EAS were conducted by a group of several websites in unison, some have been republished various forms -- and indeed, a lot of the other information outside the interviews is cited to published booksources). -- Captain M.K.B. 02:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :::It could be my ancient eyes, but I asked my 11 year old to read it and he didn't have a clue either. "LCC Something" was his guess. :) I've put the matter up for deletion and we can discuss on that page whether there is additional information available somewhere or not. Or even if it is needed; maybe it will be seen to meet canon rules and be clear enough to everyone else. Aholland 02:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::I'm not sure is an 11 year old a "restricted validity resource" or a "permitted resource"? :p -- Captain M.K.B. 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::Sometimes I feel the more restricted he is, the better! :) Aholland 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::::If ya can't read the registry label seen here, you got problems. ;) Looking at the image of the actual model, however, I'm about 99% sure it says "U.S.S. CHEKOV". --From Andoria with Love 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC) ::Okay - THAT one even I can read. :) (But I had to go there manually; the hotlink reads as disabled when I click it.) I am really trying my best to be fair and not to jump to unwarranted conclusions, so I also asked my other son, a 13 year old, what the picture of the model showed as a name. He said it was too small to make out. He also thought there were 8 letters in the second portion (after the presumed "USS"). After I told him some people thought it said Chekov, he squinted and said "I can't see it". So it ain't just me and my tired old eyes! Aholland 14:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)